The Nick Ashley Trophy, Lent Term 2025

We are also playing a Cuppers (inter-colleagiate team) tournament. Previous Nick Ashley tournaments were held in Michaelmas 2020, Easter 2021, Easter 2024 and Michaelmas 2024. The end point of the 2024 Lent competition was Friday 21st of March.

This competition was open to current members of Cambridge University Tiddlywinks Club. Note that the initial ladder order was the active players in inverse of the end state of the previous tournament.

Tournament Organiser and winner (absolutely not a fix): Jack Murphy.

Ladder

Win:loss record shown in superscript.

  1. Jack Murphy6:2
    No outstanding challenges
  2. Jody Holland0:1
    Challenge by Petroc timed out
  3. Petroc Vyvyan-Jones1:1
    Challenge of Jody timed out
  4. Josie Gaukrodger1:1
    No outstanding challenges
  5. Adam Sandhu2:0
    No outstanding challenges
  6. Alice Horton1:2
    No outstanding challenges
  7. Finley Walsh1:3
    No outstanding challenges
  8. Alison Craig-Greene0:1
    No outstanding challenges
  9. Hilary Bexfield4:3
    No outstanding challenges
  10. Nat Riches0:2
    No outstanding challenges
  11. Agnes Jardin3:2
    No outstanding challenges
  12. Francis Kelly1:1
    No outstanding challenges
  13. Emmy Charalambous0:1
    No outstanding challenges
  14. Tara Doherty0:2
    No outstanding challenges
  15. Alex Yu0:1
    No outstanding challenges
  16. Ameena Miah0:0
    No outstanding challenges
  17. Tom Buick0:1
    No outstanding challenges

Please note: Challenges listed above are informative; the Tournament Organiser is the authoritative maintainer of the challenge list.

If you do not know the email address for someone you wish to challenge, please check with the Tournament Organiser.

Match results

WinnerScore(s)LoserDate
Jack Murphy12-2Alice HortonMar 17th
Jack MurphyWalkoverJody HollandMar 16th
Josie Gaukrodger10-4Finley WalshMar 9th
Agnes Jardin12-2Francis KellyMar 7th
Adam Sandhu14-0Alice HortonMar 5th
Jack Murphy12-2Petroc Vyvyan-JonesMar 4th
Finley Walsh9-5Hilary BexfieldMar 3rd
Jack Murphy12-2Finley WalshFeb 28
Hilary Bexfield7-7Jack MurphyFeb 26th
Hilary Bexfield12-2Nat RichesFeb 24th
Adam Sandhu7-7Jack MurphyFeb 20th
Petroc Vyvyan-Jones-Josie GaukrodgerFeb 18th
Alice Horton6-1Finley WalshFeb 18th
Hilary Bexfield7-7Tara DohertyFeb 18th
Alison Craig-GreeneDouble
Walkover
Emmy CharalambousFeb 17th
Jack Murphy14-0Nat RichesFeb 16th
Agnes Jardin11-3Hilary BexfieldFeb 14th
Jack Murphy10-4Agnes JardinFeb 14th
Ameena MiahWalkoverAlex YuFeb 10th
Jack Murphy13-1Tara DohertyFeb 10th
Francis Kelly11-3Hilary BexfieldFeb 9th
Agnes Jardin11½-Tom BuickFeb 7th
Hilary Bexfield10-4Agnes JardinFeb 7th
Key:
New entry
Challenger won
Challenger lost
Walkover (conceded)

Rules

  1. A ladder was set up of players who wished to compete at the start of term. Late entrants to the ladder entered at the bottom. The current ladder was displayed on the CUTwC website.
  2. Players could challenge anyone up to 3 players above them on the ladder, provided that (a) this was not the last person they played a match against, and (b) this was not the last person that they challenged. The organiser should have been e-mailed details of the challenge.
  3. The higher player was only allowed to refuse a challenge if they already had a ladder challenge to play (also see point 8).
  4. Match results were decided by points gained from 2 games, though players were free to agree alternative numbers of games for the match (e.g. just a single game, or a marathon 5 game match). In the event of a tie, the result was decided by a pot-out competition. The organiser should have been e-mailed details of the match result.
  5. If the higher player won the match, there was no change in ladder position.
  6. If the lower player won the match, they tppl the ladder position of the higher player, and the higher player dropped one place in the ladder.
  7. Matches had to be played outside Wednesday meetings within 7 days of the challenge being made. If not played within 7 days, the organiser would either demote both players one place in the ladder, or demote the player deemed most responsible for the delay one place in the ladder.
  8. Players may optionally have accepted a second challenge and played it before the first challenge should this have been convenient. The prior challenge should have still been played (even if a change in ladder position had occurred that would normally make it invalid).
  9. Whoever was top of the ladder at a particular time should have proudly displayed the trophy in their room.

It was decreed that rule 2 meant that a player may have challenged anyone up to three places above at the time of the challenge, but that rule 6 applied to the position of the players at the time the match is completed. Rule 8 is not entirely clear on this, but it allowed an individual player to jump a large number of places in a single match, by delaying a game with a prolific opponent. Participants were asked not to game the system (or refuse a challenge if they felt their challenger was doing so when they already had a challenge in flight). Alternative solutions may have required better tracking of when challenges are placed (and thus their ordering) than we seemed to have.

Players may have asked to borrow equipment from the Club if necessary (and asked Emmy) — but must have promised to return equipment at the following CUTwC meeting. Matches did not need to be played on full-size tables — but could have taken place in student rooms, College bars, wherever was convenient. Players should have sportingly decided umpiring decisions themselves, or tossed a coin to adjudicate if it really is too close to decide. Players should have noted that 2 games of singles could have been played in 1 hour.

Lent Term 2024: Jack Murphy was the organiser of the Ladder competition for this term, and should have been reached out to if email addresses we needed.